Content regulation -Reply

Michael Baczynski michael.baczynski@alia.org.au
Wed, 02 Oct 1996 15:44:41 +1000


Roger Clarke wrote:

<snip>
(2)  "With regard to the stuff on US legislation, did you know that the
Feinstein amendment has gone through - it is now an offence under
section 842 of Title 18 of the US Code for a person to provide information
"by any means" concerning the manufacture of explosive materials
where the person intends or knows that the materials will be used in
relation to a Federal (US) offence. This update was on a link from the
EPIC home page".
<snip>

I suppose that is the trick for prosecutors though; to prove that by
posting material on the Net (or putting it in a library, or scrawling it on a
wall, or even passing conversation) the originator *knew* that the
information would be used for a Federal Offence or *intended* that it be
used for an offence. From a (albeit very brief) reading of the amendment,
it seems as if the poster would literally have to explicitly state "I hate
XYZ, you should hate them too, and if you are truly loyal/ anarchistic/just
downright mean, you should blow them up using the following method",
unless of course simply making explosive devices is a Federal offence
(anyone know? - though this would technically mean that home reloading
kits for firearms would become illegal, and I don't think that the NRA
would stand for that (-;  ) and the prosecutor could somehow link having
information accessible with the intent to have that information acted
upon, in which case libraries across the US would be in serious strife
having in their collection something as mundane as a description of how
fireworks work or what components you need for gunpowder
(chemistry texts even?). 

Cheers

Michael
______________
Content is my own and not necessarily attributable to anyone else.